Gravitymaster 0 #126 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteThen why did she lie? because her employment status with the CIA was classified as she worked with and without official cover in a covert role....until she was outed as payback for her husband exposing the lie used to justify a war.... And you know that for a fact, how? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #127 November 2, 2005 QuoteAre you serious? So, if you are a covert operator, and a neighbor says "So what do you do?" you say, "oh, i am a spy.'? Really? come on man. The nature of that work sometimes requires lying. Its called a cover story. Which is why asking neighbors if she discussed what she did is not an indication she didn't discuss it with anyone. Why are we having this discussion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #128 November 2, 2005 QuoteAnd you know that for a fact, how? because it is the most logical thing and I am not overly hindered by a blind faith in my chosen leader who I will follow and defend no matter what..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #129 November 2, 2005 QuotePoint being that what someone tells their neighbors may be quite different than what they discuss with business associates, co-workers or even friends. I don't find it hard to believe that she was more open with friends that she had known for many years than she was with neighbors she'd only known for 5 years. And where are these friends? You are speaking in totally hypotheticals. The friends that HAVE been interviewed did not know. I think the fact that the CIA requested the investigation is somewhat telling as well. But, maybe you could call and asked to take over the investigation.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #130 November 2, 2005 QuoteWhich is why asking neighbors if she discussed what she did is not an indication she didn't discuss it with anyone. Why are we having this discussion? Well at least that side has somebody saying she didn't so it. the other side is throwing the accusation around but so far has nobdy claiming that she did.... Unfortunately, in your case if anybody associated with Bush says something you will take it for gospel...so indeed, why are we having this discussion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #131 November 2, 2005 Yeah, that is right. I am going to go by what is reported from the investigation instead of what I FEEL is correct based on my knowledge of human nature. Let us move on.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #132 November 2, 2005 QuoteQuotePoint being that what someone tells their neighbors may be quite different than what they discuss with business associates, co-workers or even friends. I don't find it hard to believe that she was more open with friends that she had known for many years than she was with neighbors she'd only known for 5 years. QuoteAnd where are these friends? You are speaking in totally hypotheticals. The friends that HAVE been interviewed did not know. Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. QuoteI think the fact that the CIA requested the investigation is somewhat telling as well. Thats a different discussion entirely. QuoteBut, maybe you could call and asked to take over the investigation. I think Skydekker would be a better choice as he seems to know all the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #133 November 2, 2005 QuoteUnfortunately, in your case if anybody associated with Bush says something you will take it for gospel...so indeed, why are we having this discussion? Nah, I actually have a lot of criticism of Bush. I just like yankin you chain sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,076 #134 November 2, 2005 >Then why did she lie? Why . . . you're right! An undercover spy LIED! I never looked at it that way before. Poor Scooter is the VICTIM here! If she hadn't been telling blatant lies about what she did for the CIA, none of this would have happened. And you know, I'll bet there are people out there right now who are lying. Undercover cops who claim to be drug dealers. CIA spies who claim to be lawyers. I'll bet there are even US soldiers are being NOT QUITE HONEST about where they are going to invade next! It is up to honest americans like Scooter (and perhaps even you!) to expose their lies, so our enemies will not be told lies that might inconvenience them. You'd be following in the proud footsteps of Geraldo Rivera. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #135 November 2, 2005 Quote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sfc 1 #136 November 3, 2005 Quote QuoteOk enough, will you now answer my origianl question about why you introduced hilary clinton's whitewater testimony into your discussion of libby's indictment? Already answered. But since you can't seem to recall the answer, I'll spell it out for you again. Invoking the 5th amendment is a right all Americans have. Libby, as an American, has this right. Because he was trying to be cooperative with the investigation, he did not invoke his 5th Amendment right as he could have and had he, wouldn't have been charged with perjury. Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to be uncooperative in numerous investigations including the Rose Law Firms rip off of clients invoked her 5th amendment right and therefore wasn't charged with anything. Was she indicted, no, was she convicted, no, where is your evidence that she ripped off clients, or is this just your opinion? How do you know she was uncooperative, she would have been charged with obstruction of justice if she was, Star or whoever was the investigator would have indicted her if he had a shred of evidence. Basically you have taken a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions (probably from some talk radio show host funded by the GOP), presented them as facts and then used this to make libby sound somehow "honest" for not being uncooperative and this is OK because a "lefty" did something worse before and apparently got away with it. You should apply for a job on his defense team. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #137 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuote QuoteOk enough, will you now answer my origianl question about why you introduced hilary clinton's whitewater testimony into your discussion of libby's indictment? Already answered. But since you can't seem to recall the answer, I'll spell it out for you again. Invoking the 5th amendment is a right all Americans have. Libby, as an American, has this right. Because he was trying to be cooperative with the investigation, he did not invoke his 5th Amendment right as he could have and had he, wouldn't have been charged with perjury. Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to be uncooperative in numerous investigations including the Rose Law Firms rip off of clients invoked her 5th amendment right and therefore wasn't charged with anything. Was she indicted, no, was she convicted, no, where is your evidence that she ripped off clients, or is this just your opinion? How do you know she was uncooperative, she would have been charged with obstruction of justice if she was, Star or whoever was the investigator would have indicted her if he had a shred of evidence. Basically you have taken a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions (probably from some talk radio show host funded by the GOP), presented them as facts and then used this to make libby sound somehow "honest" for not being uncooperative and this is OK because a "lefty" did something worse before and apparently got away with it. You should apply for a job on his defense team. Correct, and the reason she wasn't convicted was because she got a real bad memory and people like Webb Hubble went to jail rather than "roll over" on her. Did you know there were 47 people indicted who were either Govt. Employees (Mike Espy rind a bell?) or close friends on her and Bill. Did you know the Governor of Arkansas resigned and went to jail? Spin it whatever way makes you feel good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #138 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out. You and Billvon crack me up. This "discussion" started by me simply commenting that the fact she didn't reveal her identity to her neighbors is not evidence she didn't reveal it to anyone else. LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #139 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out. You and Billvon crack me up. This "discussion" started by me simply commenting that the fact she didn't reveal her identity to her neighbors is not evidence she didn't reveal it to anyone else. LOL Your posts and assumptions based on no actual investigation led me to such a preposterous hyperbole. The very fact that it was an outlandish exaggeration was to show how absurd making unsubstantiated conclusions is. Glad I could make you laugh. IF is it revealed by the investigation that some OTHER friends who seems to not be able to be found knew that she was a COVERT op, I will accept that. Until that moment, I will base my opinion on the actual investigation and not what comes out of the spin machine. man... that's a lot of big words.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #140 November 3, 2005 If you had any idea how dumb what you just said is, you would be laughing too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #141 November 3, 2005 Very clever.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #142 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out. You and Billvon crack me up. This "discussion" started by me simply commenting that the fact she didn't reveal her identity to her neighbors is not evidence she didn't reveal it to anyone else. LOL Well, I suppose we could put all 6 billion inhabitants of Earth under oath to prove to your satisfaction that she didn't reveal it to anyone. Other than that, what would satisfy you. Generally speaking, we try to prove guilt, not innocence.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #143 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out. You and Billvon crack me up. This "discussion" started by me simply commenting that the fact she didn't reveal her identity to her neighbors is not evidence she didn't reveal it to anyone else. LOL Well, I suppose we could put all 6 billion inhabitants of Earth under oath to prove to your satisfaction that she didn't reveal it to anyone. Other than that, what would satisfy you. Generally speaking, we try to prove guilt, not innocence. I don't know, nor have I said, whether she revealed it to anyone else or not. I simply said the fact she didn't reveal herself to her neighbors doesn't mean she didn't reveal herself to anyone else. It also doesn't mean she did. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1905034#1905034 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #144 November 3, 2005 Getting back on track here. I thought the charges against Martha Stewart were bogus and I didn;t think she deserved to be sent to jail because there apparently was no underlying crime. How do you see the similarities and/or differences here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #145 November 3, 2005 Quote>Pretty weak evidence. Generally, in the US, when you accuse someone of something, you require evidence of your accusation. They don't have to come up with evidence that they didn't. I could accuse you of outing a CIA agent with as much authority as the people who have accused Wilson of outing his own wife. Speaking of evidence... I still haven't seen anything proving she was an active agent at the time of the "outing"....has anyone else?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #146 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuote>Pretty weak evidence. Generally, in the US, when you accuse someone of something, you require evidence of your accusation. They don't have to come up with evidence that they didn't. I could accuse you of outing a CIA agent with as much authority as the people who have accused Wilson of outing his own wife. Speaking of evidence... I still haven't seen anything proving she was an active agent at the time of the "outing"....has anyone else? I haven't found anything that is definitive one way or another. OTOH she does have 5 year old twins. Don't know whether the CIA allows pregnant women or women with small children to operate undercover. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #147 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuote>Pretty weak evidence. Generally, in the US, when you accuse someone of something, you require evidence of your accusation. They don't have to come up with evidence that they didn't. I could accuse you of outing a CIA agent with as much authority as the people who have accused Wilson of outing his own wife. Speaking of evidence... I still haven't seen anything proving she was an active agent at the time of the "outing"....has anyone else? From Wiki: Little is known of Plame's professional career. While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. "Brewster Jennings" was first entered into Dun and Bradstreet records on May 22, 1994, but D&B would not discuss the source of the filing. D&B records list the company as a "legal services office," located at 101 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts. One former CIA official, Larry C. Johnson, identified Plame as a "non-official cover operative" (NOC). He explained: "...that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." [3] David Armstrong, an Andover researcher for the Public Education Center, believed that the Brewster Jennings & Associates cover had not been done convincingly and that other covers would have been established for her by the CIA. [4] Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said, "Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life." It has been speculated that Plame likely would have worked in the office of former CIA Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) James Pavitt. Subsequent information refines this, indicating that she was employed in the Counterproliferation Division of the Directorate of Operations (DO/CPD) and had been a career clandestine intelligence officer in the DO for approximately twenty years. Some reports suggest that she was attached to the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control center (WINPAC). This appears to be incorrect, as WINPAC is an inter-agency organization administratively located in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence and most of its employees are not under permanent cover. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #148 November 3, 2005 That part I knew, but thank you, anyway. I'm looking for confirmation (which I still haven't found) of whether or not she was an active, *covert* agent at the time she was "outed"...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,076 #149 November 3, 2005 >I still haven't seen anything proving she was an active agent at the time of the "outing" . . . You're kidding, right? So let me get this straight: -If people knew she was an undercover agent, her cover was already blown, and outing her is fine. -If no one knew she was an undercover agent, she probably wasn't, so you can't out her. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #150 November 3, 2005 No, Bill... I'm not kidding at all.... you, along with the mouthpieces in the news media, keep howling about "outing" her, when there has been NO evidence that she was an active agent at the time. If Libby perjured himself or obstructed justice, then he will be convicted of it and, I'm sure, end up with a much harsher sentence than Clinton or Berger got.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gravitymaster 0 #133 November 2, 2005 QuoteUnfortunately, in your case if anybody associated with Bush says something you will take it for gospel...so indeed, why are we having this discussion? Nah, I actually have a lot of criticism of Bush. I just like yankin you chain sometimes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #134 November 2, 2005 >Then why did she lie? Why . . . you're right! An undercover spy LIED! I never looked at it that way before. Poor Scooter is the VICTIM here! If she hadn't been telling blatant lies about what she did for the CIA, none of this would have happened. And you know, I'll bet there are people out there right now who are lying. Undercover cops who claim to be drug dealers. CIA spies who claim to be lawyers. I'll bet there are even US soldiers are being NOT QUITE HONEST about where they are going to invade next! It is up to honest americans like Scooter (and perhaps even you!) to expose their lies, so our enemies will not be told lies that might inconvenience them. You'd be following in the proud footsteps of Geraldo Rivera. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #135 November 2, 2005 Quote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #136 November 3, 2005 Quote QuoteOk enough, will you now answer my origianl question about why you introduced hilary clinton's whitewater testimony into your discussion of libby's indictment? Already answered. But since you can't seem to recall the answer, I'll spell it out for you again. Invoking the 5th amendment is a right all Americans have. Libby, as an American, has this right. Because he was trying to be cooperative with the investigation, he did not invoke his 5th Amendment right as he could have and had he, wouldn't have been charged with perjury. Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to be uncooperative in numerous investigations including the Rose Law Firms rip off of clients invoked her 5th amendment right and therefore wasn't charged with anything. Was she indicted, no, was she convicted, no, where is your evidence that she ripped off clients, or is this just your opinion? How do you know she was uncooperative, she would have been charged with obstruction of justice if she was, Star or whoever was the investigator would have indicted her if he had a shred of evidence. Basically you have taken a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions (probably from some talk radio show host funded by the GOP), presented them as facts and then used this to make libby sound somehow "honest" for not being uncooperative and this is OK because a "lefty" did something worse before and apparently got away with it. You should apply for a job on his defense team. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #137 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuote QuoteOk enough, will you now answer my origianl question about why you introduced hilary clinton's whitewater testimony into your discussion of libby's indictment? Already answered. But since you can't seem to recall the answer, I'll spell it out for you again. Invoking the 5th amendment is a right all Americans have. Libby, as an American, has this right. Because he was trying to be cooperative with the investigation, he did not invoke his 5th Amendment right as he could have and had he, wouldn't have been charged with perjury. Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to be uncooperative in numerous investigations including the Rose Law Firms rip off of clients invoked her 5th amendment right and therefore wasn't charged with anything. Was she indicted, no, was she convicted, no, where is your evidence that she ripped off clients, or is this just your opinion? How do you know she was uncooperative, she would have been charged with obstruction of justice if she was, Star or whoever was the investigator would have indicted her if he had a shred of evidence. Basically you have taken a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions (probably from some talk radio show host funded by the GOP), presented them as facts and then used this to make libby sound somehow "honest" for not being uncooperative and this is OK because a "lefty" did something worse before and apparently got away with it. You should apply for a job on his defense team. Correct, and the reason she wasn't convicted was because she got a real bad memory and people like Webb Hubble went to jail rather than "roll over" on her. Did you know there were 47 people indicted who were either Govt. Employees (Mike Espy rind a bell?) or close friends on her and Bill. Did you know the Governor of Arkansas resigned and went to jail? Spin it whatever way makes you feel good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #138 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out. You and Billvon crack me up. This "discussion" started by me simply commenting that the fact she didn't reveal her identity to her neighbors is not evidence she didn't reveal it to anyone else. LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #139 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out. You and Billvon crack me up. This "discussion" started by me simply commenting that the fact she didn't reveal her identity to her neighbors is not evidence she didn't reveal it to anyone else. LOL Your posts and assumptions based on no actual investigation led me to such a preposterous hyperbole. The very fact that it was an outlandish exaggeration was to show how absurd making unsubstantiated conclusions is. Glad I could make you laugh. IF is it revealed by the investigation that some OTHER friends who seems to not be able to be found knew that she was a COVERT op, I will accept that. Until that moment, I will base my opinion on the actual investigation and not what comes out of the spin machine. man... that's a lot of big words.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #140 November 3, 2005 If you had any idea how dumb what you just said is, you would be laughing too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #141 November 3, 2005 Very clever.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #142 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out. You and Billvon crack me up. This "discussion" started by me simply commenting that the fact she didn't reveal her identity to her neighbors is not evidence she didn't reveal it to anyone else. LOL Well, I suppose we could put all 6 billion inhabitants of Earth under oath to prove to your satisfaction that she didn't reveal it to anyone. Other than that, what would satisfy you. Generally speaking, we try to prove guilt, not innocence.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #143 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Correct. If you interviewed my neighbors and asked what I did, they would tell you they don't know too. But that doesn't mean I haven't discussed it with anyone. Well, according to that train of though, maybe she was also a serial killer who ate babies. I mean, since the investigation has not turned THAT up yet, I guess we cannot rule it out. You and Billvon crack me up. This "discussion" started by me simply commenting that the fact she didn't reveal her identity to her neighbors is not evidence she didn't reveal it to anyone else. LOL Well, I suppose we could put all 6 billion inhabitants of Earth under oath to prove to your satisfaction that she didn't reveal it to anyone. Other than that, what would satisfy you. Generally speaking, we try to prove guilt, not innocence. I don't know, nor have I said, whether she revealed it to anyone else or not. I simply said the fact she didn't reveal herself to her neighbors doesn't mean she didn't reveal herself to anyone else. It also doesn't mean she did. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1905034#1905034 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #144 November 3, 2005 Getting back on track here. I thought the charges against Martha Stewart were bogus and I didn;t think she deserved to be sent to jail because there apparently was no underlying crime. How do you see the similarities and/or differences here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #145 November 3, 2005 Quote>Pretty weak evidence. Generally, in the US, when you accuse someone of something, you require evidence of your accusation. They don't have to come up with evidence that they didn't. I could accuse you of outing a CIA agent with as much authority as the people who have accused Wilson of outing his own wife. Speaking of evidence... I still haven't seen anything proving she was an active agent at the time of the "outing"....has anyone else?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #146 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuote>Pretty weak evidence. Generally, in the US, when you accuse someone of something, you require evidence of your accusation. They don't have to come up with evidence that they didn't. I could accuse you of outing a CIA agent with as much authority as the people who have accused Wilson of outing his own wife. Speaking of evidence... I still haven't seen anything proving she was an active agent at the time of the "outing"....has anyone else? I haven't found anything that is definitive one way or another. OTOH she does have 5 year old twins. Don't know whether the CIA allows pregnant women or women with small children to operate undercover. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #147 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuote>Pretty weak evidence. Generally, in the US, when you accuse someone of something, you require evidence of your accusation. They don't have to come up with evidence that they didn't. I could accuse you of outing a CIA agent with as much authority as the people who have accused Wilson of outing his own wife. Speaking of evidence... I still haven't seen anything proving she was an active agent at the time of the "outing"....has anyone else? From Wiki: Little is known of Plame's professional career. While undercover, she had described herself as an "energy analyst" for the private company "Brewster Jennings & Associates," which the CIA later acknowledged was a front company for certain investigations. "Brewster Jennings" was first entered into Dun and Bradstreet records on May 22, 1994, but D&B would not discuss the source of the filing. D&B records list the company as a "legal services office," located at 101 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts. One former CIA official, Larry C. Johnson, identified Plame as a "non-official cover operative" (NOC). He explained: "...that meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed." [3] David Armstrong, an Andover researcher for the Public Education Center, believed that the Brewster Jennings & Associates cover had not been done convincingly and that other covers would have been established for her by the CIA. [4] Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said, "Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life." It has been speculated that Plame likely would have worked in the office of former CIA Deputy Director of Operations (DDO) James Pavitt. Subsequent information refines this, indicating that she was employed in the Counterproliferation Division of the Directorate of Operations (DO/CPD) and had been a career clandestine intelligence officer in the DO for approximately twenty years. Some reports suggest that she was attached to the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control center (WINPAC). This appears to be incorrect, as WINPAC is an inter-agency organization administratively located in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence and most of its employees are not under permanent cover. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #148 November 3, 2005 That part I knew, but thank you, anyway. I'm looking for confirmation (which I still haven't found) of whether or not she was an active, *covert* agent at the time she was "outed"...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #149 November 3, 2005 >I still haven't seen anything proving she was an active agent at the time of the "outing" . . . You're kidding, right? So let me get this straight: -If people knew she was an undercover agent, her cover was already blown, and outing her is fine. -If no one knew she was an undercover agent, she probably wasn't, so you can't out her. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #150 November 3, 2005 No, Bill... I'm not kidding at all.... you, along with the mouthpieces in the news media, keep howling about "outing" her, when there has been NO evidence that she was an active agent at the time. If Libby perjured himself or obstructed justice, then he will be convicted of it and, I'm sure, end up with a much harsher sentence than Clinton or Berger got.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
